Grumpy Editor

Security officials turn to planting N.Y. hurricane fear

With terrorism threats of prime concern to many citizens, especially with the United States’ still porous southern border, Department of Homeland Security officials, headed by Michael Chertoff, were in New York City earlier this week to plant fear of a possible strike of another kind --- a hurricane.

They don’t know when it will happen.  But looking into their crystal ball they see heavy winds, driving rain and massive floods raising havoc with Gotham.  (Sounds like a possible movie.  Hold it!  That’s been done.)

Two things to keep in mind, reminds Grumpy Editor, are that the National Weather Service gets “iffy” in forecasts beyond seven days and, most noteworthy, the last hurricane to reach New York City was almost 70 years ago.

Thus, why Homeland Security and Office of Emergency Management officials are talking about an intense storm sometime in the future and “it’s time to prepare for the worst” is puzzling, especially with the focus on New York City rather than Washington, D.C., Philadelphia or Boston.

Any hurricane moving up to New York City would have to smack Washington D.C. and Philadelphia first, then Boston.

Strange that no news person questioned the sudden windy meteorological interest in New York City.

Last hurricane --- named the “Long Island Express” or the “New England Hurricane of 1938” --- to hit New York City, Long Island and New England was in September, 1938.  Previous one that passed through was in 1869.

New York City’s Emergency Management officials gave Chertoff details of a hurricane-readiness plan that includes ways to evacuate 3 million people and shelter 600,000 others.  “The planning that has been done here is second to none in terms of identifying shelters, evacuation plans, security plans, and training and equipment,” declared Chertoff.

No mention was made, by the way, on further security plans, training and equipment (including the lengthy promised fence) along the United States’ southern border.

Is using first name of Sen. Clinton disrespectful?

A Chicago Tribune editor wonders if using just the first name of Hillary Rodham Clinton in news stories is being a little too familiar, disrespectful and an insult to the senator and all women.

“Mrs. Clinton or Sen. Clinton or former First Lady Hillary Clinton are all proper ways to address or refer to her, but just plain Hillary is almost guaranteed to trigger a reaction,” writes Timothy J. McNulty, the Tribune’s public editor.

From an editorial viewpoint, Grumpy Editor reminds that headline writers like short words.  Obviously, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would be difficult to cram into a one-column, even a two-column headline.  Thus, Hillary is tailor made.  It follows headline treatment given to three-letter past presidents:  FDR, Ike, JFK and LBJ. 

It also follows other well-known abbreviated names such as Oprah, Elvis and Bono.

Hillary’s --- oops, Sen. Clinton’s --- own Web site proclaims “Hillary for President.”  Her appearances for fund raising and speeches have scores of Hillary placards bouncing around in the background.

And let’s face it, her first name distinguishes her from the other half in the news, former President Bill Clinton.

Furthermore, punch in the seven letters, Hillary, on Google and up pops HillaryClinton.com-Welcome at the top of the list.

Bottom line:  The former First Lady is branded in print, radio, TV, Web sites and elsewhere with her first name, Hillary.

Harry Reid flubs with ‘undocumented Americans’

See what’s wrong in this sentence from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking about the immigration reform bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate:  “We'll hopefully bring the final passage a comprehensive bill that will strengthen our border security and bring 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows and help our economy move strongly.”

Aside from the now tired phrase, “out of the shadows” (see June 6  posting, below), uttered by the Nevada Democrat, the two words that lifted the eyebrows of Grumpy Editor are “undocumented Americans.”

Undocumented Americans?

Now that wasn’t a slip of the tongue.  The senator was reading from a prepared text at the podium.

Reid, a Utah State University graduate also holding a law degree from George Washington University, should know that true Americans are those in the United States by birth or naturalization. 

Seems strange that the questionable “undocumented Americans” reference was overlooked not only by mum fellow senators but also by Washington media, including radio and TV folks, right down to local editors who process copy.

One broadcaster who did spot it was Bill O’Reilly who mentioned it during Monday’s "The O’Reilly Factor" on Fox News Channel.

Denver unveils ‘climate action plan’ after frosty day

Three days after Denver woke up to a record-setting frosty morning, the Rocky Mountain News yesterday detailed Mayor John Hickenlooper’s plan to combat global warming. Every resident of the mile-high city could be affected.

Outside of Denver, the controversial plan didn’t get much play, notes Grumpy Editor.  Neither did the unusual June weather there which saw the temperature drop to 31 degrees on Friday, a new record for that date and only one degree above the coldest June temperature ever recorded.  That was on June 2, 1951.

But that didn’t stop movement in the proposed “climate action plan” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  It will be considered by the City Council in the summer.

Among controversial proposals:  Higher utility rates for excessive use of electricity and natural gas, and raising car insurance premiums for those driving long distances.

However, there was no mention of discounts when the thermometer goes below freezing, even in June.

WSJ avoids using ‘illegal’ in immigrants coverage

Use of “illegal” preceding the words immigration or immigrants is avoided, in most cases, on the pages of The Wall Street Journal, observes Grumpy Editor.  Indeed, “illegal” is conspicuous by its absence.

Take last Friday’s editorial (Immigration Heritage), for example, which cited “economic contributions” of immigrants.   It mentioned “immigrant” or “immigrants” 33 times.  Illegal was mentioned only once.  And that single reference was not followed by the word immigrants. (It related to “heads of households, legal and illegal, who don’t hold a high school degree.”)

Then a story in the weekend edition, issued Saturday, under the headline, Hope for Immigration Bill?, mentioned immigration, immigration overhaul or  immigration reform six times and immigrants once.  No mention of illegal.  But the WSJ came close, referring to “undocumented workers” once.

So what’s wrong with using the word illegal?

Illegal refers to something against the law, or not authorized or sanctioned, as by rules.  Dictionaries also define the noun “illegal” as “an alien who has entered the U.S. illegally.”

With 12 million to 20 million illegals in the U.S., use of illegal shouldn’t be shunned like a naughty word uttered in The Sopranos.

‘Where’s the Fence?’ spot may have influenced senators

A “Where’s the Fence?” spot that grabbed much attention this week may have contributed to the immigration bill being shelved (for now) in the Senate last night.

Reminiscent of the still-remembered elderly woman bellowing “Where’s the Beef?” in a TV commercial a few years ago for Wendy's, Grumpy Editor finds the “Where’s the Fence?” 30-second spot, unveiled this week, humorous yet effective in underscoring the problem with the United States’ porous southern border that has escaped follow-through attention from the feet-dragging folks in Washington.

The spot targeted senators tangling with immigration reform. “Where’s the Fence?” was expected to reach 15 million viewers this week on the Web and TV.  It was produced for Grassfire.org, a leading voice opposing illegal aliens.

Footage shows three mature women searching for (and not finding) the fence Congress pledged to build at the border.

On its release, Grassfire.org president Steve Elliott said, “We’re injecting a bit of humor into a very serious debate to express the deep-seated anger felt by millions of Americans toward the president and Congress about illegal immigration.  With the Senate voting this week to give amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegal aliens, grassroots Americans will be crying out in great frustration, ‘Where’s the Fence?’”

N.Y. Times shuns front page mentions of debates

Considering the growing interest in both Democrat and Republican presidential hopefuls, Grumpy Editor finds it interesting that The New York Times (the paper of record) considers this week’s debates in Manchester, N.H., not newsworthy --- as far as the front page is concerned.

Reporting on Sunday’s and Tuesday’s debates wound up on inside pages of The Times with not a word, not even a “refer,” on page 1.

How did some other major newspapers treat the debates?

As expected in Washington, D.C., it was front page all the way.

The Washington Post placed Sunday’s session report below the fold and elevated Tuesday’s discussion to above the fold. The Washington Times went the other way, putting Sunday’s debate at the top of the front page and treated Tuesday’s contest below the fold but with a photo.

The Los Angeles Times resorted to page 1 refers to inside pages for both debates.  Its sister publication, the Chicago Tribune followed the same procedure.

‘From the shadows’ emerges as an overused phrase

With immigration reform discussions and media coverage, the overworked phrase is “from the shadows.”

Surprisingly, Grumpy Editor finds no member of the media credits Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates with that phrase, used in the title of his 1996 book:  From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War.

A sampling of those, in various fields, using from the shadows in the past few days.

Associated Press writer Elliot Spagat used from the shadows in the lead of a recent illegal aliens story with a San Diego dateline.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) worked it into a Senate conference on immigration discussion by saying “a pathway so that people can come out of the shadows.”

Fresno Bee writer Vanessa Colon wrote about legislation that “would allow illegal immigrants to come out from the shadows.”

Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, told reporters that one of the purposes of immigration reform is to “bring people from the shadows.”

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh over the past few days also has cited  from the shadows as being overused.

Democrat debate snubs English as official language

Among questions attracting attention during Sunday’s televised Democratic debate:  Should English be designated the official language of the United States? 

In these days when editors and publishers of many English-language publications are concerned about ebbing circulations, Grumpy Editor found it interesting that only one of the eight presidential hopefuls on stage in Manchester, N.H. answered in the affirmative --- former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, the only participant, incidentally, who has served in the U.S. military (Army, 1951-54).

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama protested the question itself, calling it "the kind of question that was designed precisely to divide us." He said such questions "do a disservice to the American people."  New York Sen. Hillary Clinton preferred calling English “the national language.”

Why English as the official language?

Explains Mauro E. Mujica, chairman of U.S. English, Inc., a Washington, D.C. citizens action group with 1.8 million members: “Making English the official language is not some stop-gap measure designed to thwart immigration.  It is a long-term policy that takes into account that our nation functions best when we can all communicate in the same language, and that government must promote English learning for all Americans.”

Interestingly, Kansas last month became the 30th state to enact legislation making English the official language.  In didn’t get much news coverage when Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, signed the legislation May 11 after it passed that state’s House, 114-7 and Senate, 32-8.

As pointed out by U.S. English, “Under the (Kansas) legislation, state agencies would not be required to conduct business and provide documents in languages other than English, except where necessary to comply with federal law, protect public safety, and maintain Constitutional rights."

Hopefully, the same English question will be asked when the Republican hopefuls gather in New Hampshire for tonight's televised debate.

IBM layoffs get buried in The Wall Street Journal

Pretend you are CEO of XYZ Widgets Corp., a worldwide technology operation, and your company announces 1,500 additional layoffs on top of an equal number earlier in the month.

How would The Wall Street Journal treat the story?

Chances are it would be a rather large piece with comments from analysts and perhaps some of the high-tech staffers being shown the door.

But if your company happens to be IBM Corp. with the same number of people laid off, it gets only one paragraph tucked away in the middle of the “In Brief” column on page A10, notes Grumpy Editor.  That was the case in last Thursday’s issue.

The layoffs are in IBM’s technology services unit, the company’s biggest division by revenue.  In fact, IBM doesn’t use the word “layoffs.”  It prefers “rebalancing” --- like adjusting the tire on a car.

An Associated Press story points out IBM’s services overhaul involves cheaper labor and that work force in India rose from 9,000 in 2003 to 52,000 last year.